440 Band in Jeopardy

[xtatik]

It might be worth suggesting...the first thing you can do to help is to join the ARRL in the first place... Getting the attention of the reps is always good influence, but we can expect protracted proceedings if we don't initially get our way. The ARRL could use the money right now (membership) in order to sustain the fight.

[cruiserlarry]

It might be worth suggesting...the first thing you can do to help is to join the ARRL in the first place... Getting the attention of the reps is always good influence, but we can expect protracted proceedings if we don't initially get our way. The ARRL could use the money right now (membership) in order to sustain the fight.

Excellent suggestion

[Cammo]

Wow. So many fights (land use, gun rights, Ham bands...sheesh!), so little cash. And it always seems I'm on the losing end as they usually involve freedom, and those "progressives" wanting to take it all away seem to be winning by indoctrinating our youth in publik school. I really think it's a losing battle....But I'll bite the bullet again and JOIN and call, and write, etc.!

[cruiserlarry]

Wow. So many fights (land use, gun rights, Ham bands...sheesh!), so little cash. And it always seems I'm on the losing end as they usually involve freedom, and those "progressives" wanting to take it all away seem to be winning by indoctrinating our youth in publik school. I really think it's a losing battle....But I'll bite the bullet again and JOIN and call, and write, etc.!

Really ???

I attended "public" school, and I don't remember any classes on "freedom removal"

I do remember spelling class, and learning about the history of this country, which was founded by progressives...

And IMO, a battle only becomes a losing battle when people refuse to fight it...

And all amateur operators appreciate whatever effort you put in to help stop this bill

[DaveK]

This country wasn't founded by progressives. You learned that in spelling class???

Another example of the state of public education.

[cruiserlarry]

This country wasn't founded by progressives. You learned that in spelling class???

Well, indirectly, yes.

It was in English class that I learned to spell, and where I learned to use the dictionary.

The definition of progressive - "favoring or advocating change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are" - would certainly describe our founding fathers, including those involved with the framing of our Constitution, and those who worked on the Declaration of Independence. They were far from the status quo, both in intent and action,which by definition made them "progressive".

I think the real shame is that "progressive" has been twisted to represent something bad, given that without progress, most of us would not have survived long enough to argue semantics by quill, let alone on an on-line forum.

We do agree there is nothing inherently "progressive", as far as amateur radio is concerned, about HR 607 - and it should be stopped.



.

[Cammo]

From Wikipedia: (my reasons in bold)
Names and words are sometimes intentionally and satirically misspelled for a rhetorical purpose. This is often done by replacing a letter with another letter (for example, k replacing c), or symbol (for example, $ replacing s, @ replacing a, or ¢ replacing c). This is found particularly in informal writing on the Internet, but can also be found in some serious political writing that opposes the status quo.
Replacing the letter "c" with "k" in the first letter of a word came into use by the Ku Klux Klan during its early years in the mid-to-late 19th century. The concept is continued today within the ranks of the Klan.
Barcelona squat and anarchist center, labeled "OKUPA Y RESISTE"

In the 1960s and early 1970s in the United States, leftists, particularly the Yippies, sometimes used "Amerika" rather than "America" in referring to the United States.[1] It is still used as a political statement today.[2] It is likely that this was originally an allusion to the German spelling of America, and intended to be suggestive of Nazism, a hypothesis that the Oxford English Dictionary supports.

In broader usage, the replacement of the letter "C" with "K" denotes general political skepticism about the topic at hand and is intended to discredit or debase the term in which the replacement occurs.[3] Detractors sometimes spell former president Bill Clinton's name as "Klinton" or "Klintoon". End reference.

Kalifornia; Klinton; Amerika; Publik school.

The word Progressive has been co-opted, kind of like the word "gay" has been. Today it connotates anything BUT what it's dictionary definition USED to be.

[DaveK]

Larry:

Your reliance on a definition of the word progressive is lacking. Much of the definitional problem we have here stems from an intentional attempt to conceal real motives and an absence of the true definition. I’ll explain.

Frequently these days, the label “progressive” is assumed by many who wish to conceal their true political beliefs. When one is tired of wearing the leftist or liberal label, it is a simple matter to rebrand ones self and become a progressive. In the vast majority of these cases, there is not a penny’s worth of difference between the two. And besides, progressive sounds so much better. Who could find fault with someone who purports a desire to progress.

Putting aside those who wish to cloak themselves in a new name just to hide an old philosophy, there are truly a group of individuals who can wear the progressive label. While I am sure that you are aware of this, the father of the American Progressive Movement is generally accepted to be Teddy Roosevelt. This fact alone precludes the possibility that the founders of this country were progressives. But wait, there’s more.

While true progressives differ in their assessment of problems and how to resolve them, they nearly always share a common view that government, at every level, must be actively involved in all reforms and resolutions. To progressives, government is the solution to nearly every problem and in a convoluted sort of way, government is almost deified by these people. They believe that our existing constitutional system is outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of an administrative bureaucracy. Our founders never believed any of this. They believed that the principals and values upon which they founded this country were constant and never changing. They believed in a small federal government. They believed in individual freedom and liberty. They believed in divine providence. As I have told you before Larry, the Constitution is not a living document subject to the whims and changing winds of time.

Our founders were not progressives.

I am beginning to think that this thread is jinxed. Try as I may, we keep wandering away from what should be our main goal - Defeat the King bill. Oh well, I tried!

[cruiserlarry]

From Wikipedia: (my reasons in bold)
Names and words are sometimes intentionally and satirically misspelled for a rhetorical purpose.

The purposefulness of the letter switch was not lost on me...To me, it detracted from your point, as it was being used in a derogatory, not sarcastic way, to accent a statement that has no factual basis.

The word Progressive has been co-opted... it connotates anything BUT what it's dictionary definition USED to be.

That's not co-opting..that's PROGRESS !!!

We do not live in a static world, or use a static language...as demonstrated very well in this thread...

Back to the topic at hand - saving the 440 band by defeating HR 607

[cruiserlarry]

Larry:

Your reliance on a definition of the word progressive is lacking. As I have told you before Larry, the Constitution is not a living document subject to the whims and changing winds of time.

Our founders were not progressives.

I am beginning to think that this thread is jinxed. Try as I may, we keep wandering from what should be our main goal - Defeat the King bill. Oh well, I tried!

My reliance on the definition would be considered a conservative treatment of the issue - I stand by my statement that the origins of our country and the documents that evolved from it were based on a progressive attitude, which was not the status quo of the time, even if you feel they were conservative in philosophy by today's standards. The history you provided regarding progressive as a political party is interesting, but dated, and unrelated to the statements I made.

The constitution is a living document - it can be amended, it continues be interpreted in different ways; it is by the choice of the people of this country that it remains the basis of our government and way of life here, and that is why it is worth defending, IMO...

This thread is not jinxed....we both just suffer from the inability to leave any comment unanswered...

When is HR 607 up for a vote ?? Or is it still just working it's way through committees...